Obradovich: Study suggests Iowa has right approach on judges

Jun. 15, 2013

Written by

Kathie Obradovich

It didn’t get much attention in Iowa last week, but a new study on the effect of campaign donations in judicial elections merits a mention.

The study from the American Constitution Society compared campaign contributions to rulings by state supreme court justices. It found that the more campaign contributions justices received from business interests, the more likely they were to rule in favor of business interests who appear before them in court.

“Notably, the analysis reveals that a justice who receives half of his or her contributions from business groups would be expected to vote in favor of business interests almost two-thirds of the time,” the study states.

Nine states have direct, partisan elections for supreme court justices. Another 12 have nonpartisan elections. Iowa is one of 29 states where the governor initially appoints justices and also one of 18 where justices stand for retention elections to remain on the bench.

Money in judicial campaigns is significant, and it is growing.

The study reported that campaign fundraising in judicial races has more than doubled from $83.3 million from 1990-1999 to nearly $207 million in 2000-2009. During the decade ending in 2009, business groups contributed 30 percent of the overall donations, while lawyers and lobbyists chipped in 28 percent.

The good news for Iowa in the study is that retention elections such as Iowa’s process did not show a significant correlation between contributions and judges’ rulings.

In Iowa, the method of selecting and retaining judges has been under scrutiny over the past several years because of political campaigns against four of the Iowa Supreme Court justices seeking retention. In 2010, three Iowa Supreme Court justices were ousted after facing organized opposition from groups opposed to gay marriage. In 2012, some of the same groups opposed Justice David Wiggins, although he won retention.

Those Iowa campaigns involved some serious money. In 2012, opponents of Wiggins’ election spent over $460,000, while his supporters spent nearly $350,000. Wiggins himself did not campaign or raise money, however. Most of the money came from issue-oriented nonprofit organizations.

There has been no reason to suggest that Wiggins or other justices were influenced by this spending. But last week, some of those donations came under criticism because of a lack of transparency. A former Republican presidential candidate, Fred Karger of California, said he was filing an ethics complaint against the National Organization for Marriage, one of the contributors in the retention campaign, because it does not disclose its donors.

During the campaign, some argued that Iowa’s merit selection process for nominating judges should change to avoid allowing lawyers on the nominating commission too much influence. A few advocated the outright election of judges as a way to make them accountable to the public. Ultimately, however, lawmakers chose not to make major changes in the process.

The American Constitution Society’s study suggests that was the right decision in terms of keeping Iowa courts free of influences related to campaign fundraising. The anti-retention campaigns were not really about trying to get favorable court decisions. They were about ginning up grass-roots activity and donations for a political cause. In this case, it was opposing gay marriage.

The three remaining justices who were part of the unanimous ruling that effectively legalized gay marriage are up for retention in 2016. Even though public acceptance of gay marriage has grown significantly even since 2010, these justices may face renewed opposition as a way to again generate grass-roots activity among conservative voters.

So far, the spike in political activism and spending on judicial retention has related entirely to gay marriage. If political organizations find value in these sorts of campaigns, however, they’ll find other reasons to get involved.

That could lead to Iowa judges having to campaign and raise money to stay in office. Iowans should take warning there are real consequences when justice has a price tag.